Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 31636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Shobhana M.K – Appellant
Versus
Unnikulam Grama Panchayath – Respondent
RP NO. 582 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Santharam P, Rekha Aravind, P.G.Gokulnath, S. Ramgopal, Angel Cherpanath
A court has the inherent authority to recall its own judgment if it is satisfied that a significant procedural omission, such as the failure to consider all prayers in an original writ petition, requires the matter to be reheard in the interest of justice.
Headnote:The review petition was filed seeking to recall a previous judgment passed by the court in a writ proceeding. The petitioner contended that certain prayers contained in the original writ petition were not addressed by the court due to a lapse by the legal counsel. Upon consideration of the submissions, the court acknowledged the error and determined that the interests of justice necessitated a reconsideration of the matter. The core issue was whether a judgment could be recalled when specific prayers in the writ petition were overlooked by the court due to oversight. The court reasoned that in the interest of enabling a comprehensive adjudication of all claims, it is appropriate to restore the writ petition to its original standing. The ratio decidendi rests on the court's inherent power to rectify procedural oversights to ensure justice. The review petition is allowed, and the earlier judgment is recalled with a directive to restore the writ petition to the file.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's discretion to recall judgments based on procedural lapses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
O R D E R
The above review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 17.03.2026 in WP(C) No.5180/2026.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that some more prayers were there in the writ petition and the same were not properly noticed by this Court. Hence the writ petition is to be reconsidered. It is also submitted that it is a mistake on the part of the lawyer.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, the judgment can be recalled and the writ petition can be considered once again.
Therefore, this Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 17.03.2026 in WP(C) No.5180/2026 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file.
